Then use the right term. If someone who reads things in context and considers who's saying what had made such a stupid little mix-up like confounding HIV for AIDS, I'd let it pass. But you're the one policing volcabulary and projecting all sorts of beliefs and ideas onto others.

>"treating an individual differently because he belongs to a certain social demographic is prejudice." Of course it is. But does it help or hurt? If I chase after a Celt with SPF50 lotion more quickly than I do for a southern Euporean, I'm making all sorts of assumptions. Similary, I attach no stigma to the HIV+ person, but (if I was the medical provider) would want to be able to respond with appropriate care and some medical conditions make a big difference in patient care.

"twink", like "bear" is, in my circles, simply descriptive. Not pegorative. If I'm in a dialouge with Dan Savage, he's pulling all sorts of terms (and their meanings) from the dominant culture. As I am with terms from different subcultures including many to which I don't belong. I know there are highly dramatic and extended debates about whether a non-member of a (gay, black, kink, vor, etc) community should use vocab from that community. The n-word (youtube Tim Minchin on that) for blacks and the d-word for lesbians are, in my opinion, still too dodgy to use more widely. But on a daily basis, I usurp terms from Spanish (Sierra) Hispanic (burrito), French (ala mode), Black (rock&roll), gay, geek, Star Trek, and academic cultures. And I'm not going to stop. To each their own.

Much of this reminds of "janitors" becoming "custodians" 40 years ago. I never saw the problem as they were doing important, neccessary work and I didn't look down on them. But for people who saw the janitors as "the lowly guys who hauls the trash", the new terms quickly had all the same negative connotations.

Reread what I wrote in the context of "an ally who doesn't police his vocabulary and was giving an extreme example of not disclosing health issues to make a point." and maybe it wouldn't seem so evil.

Combat gauze runs about $35 a roll though some will gouge those who don't shop around. That's for the standard roll, the XL roll is a lot more. There are cheaper alternatives to CG now (i.e. Celox gauze) that have good performance data backing them. The most recent studies actually call for looking at these newer products instead of CG.

The kaolin in CG becomes less effective once it absorbs moisture, so the risk with old CG is that the packaging has been compromised and let air/moisture in.

Proper wound packing technique is king. You can do a lot with plain gauze or improvised materials. Look on YouTube for good tutorials from TacMed Solutions.

I've personally given up trying to keep apprised of what naming conventions evolve to become offensive to various members of a particular conceptualized group. So, now when I'm unsure I just refer to them as "a--holes", a category I'm proud to count myself a member of.

Concerning slang terms offensive to groups: these days, a lot of people think that it's kitsch and cool to "bring back" terms and throw them around as a sort of challenge, really. The implication is that the terms have been de-fanged; or again, in the right hands, re-worked to become provocative in the opposite way that they once were. Case in point: Bitch Magazine; very feminist of course. To paraphrase Marx, the idea seems to be that the first time around derogatory slang is hateful and offensive; the second time, kitsch and/or empowering. As for me, I cringe just typing the B word.

I think that a better strategy would be to leave the hateful slang behind entirely and move on. I certainly am not cool enough or young enough to get away with any of it.

This is all just general commentary and not intended for anybody. Like half my posts.

As much as I believe your actions towards the gay community are in line with the way society is supposed to be acting, the way you've portrayed yourself in this thread gives Nancy a lot of credence. Your reference to his sexual preference was suspect, this was furthered by your explanation, and whatever the "statistics" say, it's not appropriate to make assumptions about individuals based on sexual preferences, ever. Assumptions underlie prejudice often enough that an ally like you doesn't want to support the trend.

I think the best thing to do is not to challenge Nancy. She's right. If I were in your shoes, I'd apologize for the misunderstanding, and everyone's on the same page; a lot more effective than sarcastically calling yourself an enemy of gay rights.

It's an era where political correctness is overblown, but in this particular situation, the connection between medical information, AIDS, and homosexuality is not fair and not appropriate. In my opinion; you can take it for what it is. Just observations!

Nancy, good on you for keeping your voice loud. It's commendable and I applaud it. I'm gonna give Dave the benefit of the doubt here and say I believe he meant no harm; his past posts never indicate anything remotely like prejudice; contrary, I think he's more open-minded than everyone else on the forum.

It was scientifically proven that Fred Abernathy is 2% more open minded than David.

OP,

Nothing wrong with a zip lock FAK but I have to admit that I really like Adventure Med's kits for the bags. +whatever on adding triple antibiotic, ibuprofen, immodium, and an antihistamine. I bought one of these kits for my parents and felt it was of good quality.

We ALL make them all the time. When you first meet someone you make all kinds of assumptions as to what they are like. We do this because we don't have much to go on. When the assumptions we are making are important, such as attempting to determine why the only person of a group of 16 refused to provide medical information, especially when we might be involved in providing medical treatment, most of us would use whatever information we had. Since assuming the person in question might he HIV+ doesn't hurt anyone and may in fact help, it is a "good" assumption to make. If "you" are offended that someone would make that assumption in that situation then I suggest that "you" are just a little to sensitive.

I worked with someone I believed to be homosexual, but they never said in the over 20 years I knew them. I assumed they were. It had no effect on any of my interactions with them. I guess I am prejudiced also... At least they didn't seem to mind.

The rules of PC code section 854 subsection (a)(iii) clearly states that "at no time shall you say anything which may be offensive to anyone, anywhere, at anytime no matter how unreasonable the victim may be"

How the heck am I supposed to comply with that?!?

First we're going to enroll you into sensitivity training. The brown shirts.... I mean... PC counselors will supervise you to ensure that anything you say or do from this day forward will be as inoffensive as vanilla ice cream.

But I just wanted to buy a first aid....

Shush! You can't call it "first aid" anymore!

Why the heck not?

Because your "first" priority is to ensure that nothing you say or do is offensive.

So if someone's bleeding.....?

You stop and assess the situation. You must assume without assuming what the person's ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and shoe size is and avoid any topic which may run contrary to their beliefs. Then you may only address them as "person of injury."

Then I can stop the bleeding?

Whoa slow down there psycho! You then need to conduct an "Offense Threat Assessment."

While we're on the topic, I went to the renowned Din Tai Fung dumpling house for my first time today. The sesame buns were amazing, as was the wonton soup. Service was excellent. Fortunately, my wife and I got there early enough to avoid a 2 hour wait.Highly recommended. A worthwhile cause, but it might take me a while to sample the whole menu.

Surfed the Channel Islands yesterday. Real Good Stuff. Will surf again tomorrow though I fear conditions will be blown out. Large enough swell but the onshore wind might be a bit high.

Heading to the Salton Sea on Saturday with my wife. I'm thinking I'll stop for a vanilla date shake at Hadley's. It's been years since I've had one. Can't really remember if I liked it or not.

>But I just wanted to buy a first aid....>Shush! You can't call it "first aid" anymore!>Why the heck not?>Because your "first" priority is to ensure that nothing you say or do is offensive.

LOLZ, you da man Ian! ;) Imagine the revised NREMT skillsheets...

This thread reminds me of why I enjoyed the comedy of Carlos Mencia so much. He called out every group (his included) and made fun of their foibles, everyone laughed with everyone else, and he helped us realize that we're all human and we all have our weak spots. Too bad the PC BrownShirts would crucify him if they could. All in the name of tolerance. They'll make ya tolerant 'til ya die.

Of course its not tolerance they want, it's acceptance and obedience. But that's a post for another day, when someone asks "hey does anyone here like cuben fiber?".